Uttarakhand High Court
“Mursaleen vs Unknown on 27 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:3171
BA 1st No.325 of 2026
"Mursaleen Vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the
Applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case
arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular
bail for the Applicant – Mursaleen, who has been accused in
Case Crime/FIR No.274 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/60 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at
Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.
4. The case of the prosecution is based on the FIR that on
05.07.2025, while the Police Team was in the regular duty of
crime control and check-up, they came across the present
Applicant, who was riding a black colour Super Splendour
Plus motorcycle with Registration No.UP12BQ6728. As per
the FIR, the Applicant is said to have confessed to the Police
that he was carrying a contraband, namely, smack and other
things inside the bag, which he was carrying on his shoulder,
but after having verified the said registration number of the
vehicle through E-challan machine, it was found that the
motorcycle belongs to one Jabeer S/o Jabbar R/o Village Jola,
Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar
Pradesh. When call for the papers of the said vehicle, the
Applicant could not reveal the documents, which were asked
for regarding the said vehicle, not even the Applicant have a
valid driving licence, and thereafter the motorcycle and the
Applicant then booked under the Motor Vehicle Act. After
conveying the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,
regarding search and seizure of the contraband, his possession
is searched for i.e. bag, and after opening the same the
contraband involved in the present matter was seized. The
total amount of smack recovered from the bag of the
Applicant is 1.042 kilograms.
5. The main ground for consideration of the bail as
advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. In
fact, the real story is that it was lifted from his godown and
not from the spot where it is said to be. Referring to Section
58 of the NDPS Act, whereby it is provided that “whoever
without reasonable ground or suspicion enters does a search,
vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any
person and vexatiously and unnecessarily detains and
searches and arrests the person” it comes within the brackets
of punishable offence. Referring to the said section, learned
counsel for the Applicant submits that the present case is
nothing but vexatious, the seizure and the arrest have been all
built up.
6. The second argument placed before this Court
regarding consideration for bail is that after his arrest, arrest
memo was drafted on the spot, including the inventory report
and even prior to lodging of the FIR, the said documentation
contains an FIR number which cannot be done. Since crime
number can only be mentioned after the lodging of the FIR
and hence the arrest memo, including the inventory report is
ante time documented. Meaning thereby, it has been prepared
later, but shown to have been made earlier. Mention of an FIR
number, which did not, exists at the time of the arrest
indicates fabrication or manipulation of official record. Thus,
it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the
bail may be granted to the Applicant on whatever conditions
the Court imposes on him, he abides by the same.
7. Learned State Counsel refutes to the said submissions
as advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant on the
ground that there is no fabrication in the present matter and
there was no ground to show that the Applicant had
vexatiously and unnecessarily arrested and the seizure shown
had been illegal. It is stated that the present Applicant has a
criminal history and series of cases against him, and there is
no Police enmity with the Applicant which may show that he
had been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is
admitted that though there had been a noting of the FIR
number in arrest memo and inventory report, it had been done
so and the entry has been done by a Pen which can only been
done after the registration of the FIR, and it is wrong to say
the crime number has been mentioned prior to the lodging of
the FIR.
8. Thus, it is clear that the arrest memo and the inventory
report purportedly prepared prior to the registration of the FIR
and curiously bears the FIR number, this renders the
documentation, search and seizure, inherently suspicious and
inductive it being ante time and subsequently prepared and
back dated.
9. This Court finds that the arrest become prima facie
illegal as it suggests that FIR number was actually registered
earlier but shown later on the arrest memo, and the inventory
report, was prepared after the FIR, but falsely back dated. In
both situations, undermine the procedural sanctity mandated
under the NDPS Act.
10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, the Applicant has made out a case for bail.
11. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed
that the Applicant – Mursaleen, who has been accused in Case
Crime/FIR No.274 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at
Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
court. The Applicant shall cooperate with the trial proceedings
and shall not misuse the liberty granted to him.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
27.04.2026
Nitesh/
